Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
oops, sorry I missed your comment on critical mass. I was rushing a bit (ironically because I needed to get some work done and I wanted to walk home before the sun sets).
I do want to say that I'm glad you are talking about "more walkable" and "less walkable" rather than labeling areas "unwalkable." It's a pet peeve of mine when people use words like unwalkable because words like that are incredibly destructive. Use a word like that and you unwittingly convince your neighbors (and often yourself) to not even bother trying to walk somewhere. So many of us are sheep who'll believe once a label has been give, it must be true. And what's amazing is they'll believe it even if they look out the window and see people walking. The destructive power of labels like that is impressive.
The good news is, the reverse works just as well. In other words, if you label your neighborhood as "walkable" and you start walking a lot to prove it, before you know it lots of other people start walking too. I think that one of the reasons you see so many people walking to the grocery in my neighborhood is because I make a point of talking about walking there. My neighbors see me walking with my grocery bags. I wave, I look like I'm having a great time (and I am--I love to walk). Soon they figure if I can do it, they can do it, and so on and so forth. I've had a few people join me--more often they just try it one their own. But the point is each new person you see walking encourages 2-3 more. These days I see dozens of people walking down to the shopping plaza and to the bus stop almost every day. And some small part of that may be due to me, and the fact that I openly talk about how much I like walking. I think that's kind of cool.
This is why I would never call an area "unwalkable" unless it really is a place where walking is truly difficult. By that I mean it doesn't have sidewalks (or trails), and/or stores are several miles away. Calling an area "unwalkable" when what you really mean is it isn't urban is a bad habit that's more destructive than people realize.
Anyway--sorry I missed you comment and I guess I should probably sign off on this topic since I don't really have time to read all the posts as thoroughly as I should. Besides, I'd rather spend my time going out for a walk.
Interesting--"walkable" to me would never include specific trails or paths through parks. I mean, I guess that's walkable for the sake of walking for exercise or enjoyment, but to me "walkable" is a practical term. From your home, can you walk to all the necessities? Will you stand out doing so? In Arlington, it's common to see people carrying groceries home on a bike or pulling them in a cart. If I were to do the same thing here in Burke, despite being able to walk to a grocery store from my home (with sidewalks, to boot!), I'd stick out like a sore thumb.
I think walkable to me also subconsciously is very "mixed use". Neighborhoods that are a mile away from shopping centers and restaurants don't strike me as terribly walkable, although I most definitely could walk there. Areas that encourage walking are those with apartments above the store fronts or streets of homes running perpendicular to the street of restaurants and shops.
Ironically, while I love visiting areas that are walkable, I very purposely moved to a neighborhood that does not fit any of those definitions. I like being isolated and away from the busy-ness of places like that--I quickly find it tiring. Around my home, I just want other homes and some nature. I found an awesome trail running through a park in my neighborhood today that I didn't know existed. I walked my dog along it for a good hour today, and was thrilled. I would never call that "walkable" though.
I consider my SFH neighborhood in McLean "walkable" but I don't really care if others want to tell me it's not because it doesn't meet their aesthetic or functional requirements (because, for example, it's not dense enough or downtown McLean has "gaps" and strip mall parking lots to navigate). It does have a reasonably high Walk Score, but I actually like the fact that it's a quick drive to lots of things more than I like the fact that it's within a mile of a park, community center, library, several grocery stores, too many convenience stores, shops and restaurants and a Starbucks that I can walk to within 15-20 minutes when so inclined.
The irony is that people actually walk around the neighborhood constantly for reasons that have little to do with the foregoing. It doesn't get a lot of vehicular traffic and it borders several clusters of townhouses. Even though it doesn't have sidewalks (gasp!), the people who live in the neighborhood and the nearby townhouses constantly are taking walks with their children and pets. The streets are somewhat hilly, there are nice views of different types of houses, and people stop and talk to each other. If the Starbucks was 3 miles away vs. .6 mile, that would still be the case. The reality that there are other attributes of the neighborhood that seem to encourage people to walk there makes it harder for me to fall back on a Wiki-like definition of "walkability" that merely focuses on the extent to which a neighborhood may look like an Old Town or Park Slope due to a mix of commercial and residential activities, etc.
I'd also like to see communities around here become more casual cyclist friendly (think beach cruisers) as it is in other parts of the world. Cycling around here seems limited to people exercising or to Lance Armtrong wannabes. Would be nice to have a culture where people could ride from place to place to go about their business. Most city streets and sidewalks around here don't really support that. Bike paths tend to be located away from commercial areas.
I do want to say that I'm glad you are talking about "more walkable" and "less walkable" rather than labeling areas "unwalkable."
I've said numerous times (I think) that I don't consider "walkability" to be a binary.
Quote:
The good news is, the reverse works just as well. In other words, if you label your neighborhood as "walkable" and you start walking a lot to prove it, before you know it lots of other people start walking too.
thats one of the ways critical mass works. I think actually seeing people walking is even more effective than hearing someone talk about it. "show, don't tell"
I consider my SFH neighborhood in McLean "walkable" but I don't really care if others want to tell me it's not because it doesn't meet their aesthetic or functional requirements (because, for example, it's not dense enough or downtown McLean has "gaps" and strip mall parking lots to navigate). It does have a reasonably high Walk Score, but I actually like the fact that it's a quick drive to lots of things more than I like the fact that it's within a mile of a park, community center, library, several grocery stores, too many convenience stores, shops and restaurants and a Starbucks that I can walk to within 15-20 minutes when so inclined.
The irony is that people actually walk around the neighborhood constantly for reasons that have little to do with the foregoing. It doesn't get a lot of vehicular traffic and it borders several clusters of townhouses. Even though it doesn't have sidewalks (gasp!), the people who live in the neighborhood and the nearby townhouses constantly are taking walks with their children and pets. The streets are somewhat hilly, there are nice views of different types of houses, and people stop and talk to each other. If the Starbucks was 3 miles away vs. .6 mile, that would still be the case. The reality that there are other attributes of the neighborhood that seem to encourage people to walk there makes it harder for me to fall back on a Wiki-like definition of "walkability" that merely focuses on the extent to which a neighborhood may look like an Old Town or Park Slope due to a mix of commercial and residential activities, etc.
I havent walked around Mclean lately myself, but in my head I wouldn't think of it as the least walkable area in Fairfax county. The concentration of destinations certainly helps. Though I think there may be other areas that are more conducive for walking for most people. Your point about the culture of neighborliness contributing to walking, (in addition to functional and aesthetic issues) is well made (though its not like all areas with good functional and aesthetic conditions are lacking in that).
As for walking on streets with no sidewalks, its clearly possible to do that - my wife and I have taken such walks in Annandale, and took a pleasure walk the other day in sidewalk free (sidewalk deprived?) Lake Barcroft. It was a pleasant if chilly day, and there was hardly anyone else out walking despite the abundance of flowers and the lovely views of the lake. Maybe it was the areas culture, or maybe their view of ideal walking temps is different from ours But the absence of sidewalks makes the speed and frequency of traffic an even larger concern than on streets with sidewalks (where it is more a matter of aesthetics and comfort than safety except at crossings) Also the actual geometry of the road matters a good deal in such a case.
re walking to destinations vs walking for pleasure
Ideally I'd like to have BOTH. This to me is another illustration of the non binary character of "walkability" To me the perfect walking neighborhood would enable A. walking to destinations - shops, schools, transit, etc B. Long recreational walks on scenic trails C. Short "neighborly" walks with or without dogs or strollers, to meet the neighbors, etc.
1. I passed 8 people today. Not as many as usual, considering it's a nice day. On the other hand, I left a little later than usual. Some days I see a lot of people, some days I don't see anyone at all. Since the number of people on my route can vary quite a bit, how do I determine what the critical mass is? And, on the days I don't see anyone at all, is my route suddenly less walkable?
2. Taking the reverse of that question.... What about on those days when my route becomes packed with people? Is it more walkable when a 10K is being run, and the sidewalks are full of people walking along? Or on July4th when everyone walks down to Trumps Golf Course to see the fire works. To me, a crowd of people make it more difficult for me to walk. But that's just me, other people enjoy walking in crowds.
I also don't like walking on Fifth Ave. in NYC because of the crowds. So, if I don't enjoy the experience of walking there does that mean NYC isn't walkable? Of course not, it's walkable because you can get from one point to another by walking. I may not enjoy the experience of walking there but that doesn't keep it from being considered a walkable area.
2a. Conclusions from these thoughts.... You asked how different people define the word "walkability". Here's my definition: IMO walkability is strictly about how easy it is to be able to walk in an area to get to a destination. The quality of the sidewalk/path/street is a factor, but the number of other people walking on a path isn't, IMO. I just can't agree with the critical mass concept, even though I understand what you're saying--it's just that everyone has a different idea of what's a comfortable critical mass. Mine is zero, since I'm just fine if nobody else is on a path. So for me, it's not a factor in whether or not a route is walkable. Aesthetic issues are too subjective to be a factor in whether or not a route can be labelled walkable. Same goes for whether or not you like the stores that are within walking distance. Just my two cents.
3. Which led to another thought.... if someone is walking right behind me it starts to make me nervous after a minute or so and I usually change my pace so that person will pass me. Do people who walk in denser areas feel this way? Something to ponder. It's funny that I have absolutely no problem walking a stretch of sidewalk with no other walkers, but I get nervous when people walk too close behind me or I have to walk past a big crowd of people. (Ironically, if I lived in a more urban area I would probably drive more often because I don't really enjoy walking in crowded areas. Strange, but true.)
4. As usual, Jeb brought up a great point. Although I'm a fan of sidewalks, they're not necessary for every neighborhood. I know of some neighborhoods without sidewalks where you still see a lot of people walking. I have relatives in Huntingon NY who are always out walking and they don't have sidewalks.
5. How does this issue affect Nova communities currently being developed? Most (if not all) of the new ones seem to have sidewalks and walking trails, as well as shopping plazas scattered throughout. All good things, in my book so I guess in some ways I don't mind having the word "walkable" becoming trendy and (temporarily at least) getting a new definition.
Yet....
As much as I personally like walking I wonder if walkability is really just the latest thing to talk about and not really something people will end up doing.
Will homebuyers be willing to sacrifice other desires for it, or is it just a trendy idea to add to a wish list? I hope it's a genuine trend, but I wonder how much walking will really be done by most people. If people do move into walkable neighborhoods, are they genuinely going to spend time walking to the store or are they going to end up driving anyway?
At any rate, enough thinking. Once again this topic makes me realize that the time I'm spending typing posts on the internet is time I could be outside walking home. And so I'm diving back into my work so I can get it done early and get out there. Have a nice weekend everyone, and try to set aside a little time for walking. It really is a great habit to develop.
Aesthetic issues are too subjective to be a factor in whether or not a route can be labelled walkable. .
well we all have different views of labeling. I mean if we ignore the subjective, I dont know how we can label anything (like how can we objectively decide whats low in crime - some of us may value a low murder rate more, while for others car thefts are more of an issue - and how do we say that there is good hiking near NoVa - some people may dislike SNP for some reason) And I think in making policy decisions we ignore the aesthetic at our peril. A planner can want folks to utilize a facilty they find ugly, and can disagree with their tastes, but he can't make them use it.
Last edited by brooklynborndad; 04-13-2012 at 12:45 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
